Where coordination frees up the most workers
Siloed (per-agency)
Coordinated (pooled)
Each pair of bars is one building: red = workers dispatched today (each
agency sends its own), teal = workers needed if the building's visits were pooled. The gap is
eliminated travel-to-site and idle time - the dividend that routing optimization cannot reach
in a vertical NORC.
Inside the packing - showcase buildings
980 Thornbury Lane S Condos
8 agencies · 12 visits ·
12.0 visit-h/day · siloed 7 workers
→ coordinated 2 workers
Coordinated packing (each bar = one worker's day):
Building 001 Community Housing
6 agencies · 12 visits ·
11.0 visit-h/day · siloed 6 workers
→ coordinated 2 workers
Coordinated packing (each bar = one worker's day):
Building 002 Condos
7 agencies · 31 visits ·
32.5 visit-h/day · siloed 10 workers
→ coordinated 6 workers
Coordinated packing (each bar = one worker's day):
Each bar is one coordinated worker's day; coloured segments are visits stacked
against the 6.0-hour shift capacity (grey). High fill = high utilization. Under the
siloed model these visits would be scattered across 8+
agencies' separate workers.
Top buildings by dividend
| Building | Type | Agencies | Visits/day | Visit-h/day | Siloed | Coord. | Workers saved | Utilization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 980 Thornbury Lane S | Condos | 8 | 12 | 12.0 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 29% → 100% |
| Building 001 | Community Housing | 6 | 12 | 11.0 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 31% → 92% |
| Building 002 | Condos | 7 | 31 | 32.5 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 54% → 90% |
| Building 003 | Condos | 8 | 34 | 34.0 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 57% → 94% |
| Building 004 | Condos | 5 | 5 | 5.0 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 17% → 83% |
| 10 Old York Mills Rd | Condos | 6 | 7 | 6.0 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 20% → 100% |
| Building 005 | Apartments | 7 | 39 | 40.5 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 61% → 96% |
| Building 006 | Community Housing | 5 | 9 | 11.5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 38% → 96% |
| 243 Bramwell Lane N | Community Housing | 4 | 30 | 35.0 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 65% → 97% |
| Building 007 | Community Housing | 6 | 12 | 14.0 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 39% → 78% |
| Building 008 | Condos | 6 | 25 | 28.5 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 59% → 95% |
| Building 009 | Condos | 4 | 21 | 23.5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 56% → 98% |
| Building 010 | Condos | 5 | 11 | 12.0 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 40% → 100% |
| 5 Northwood Lane N | Community Housing | 7 | 20 | 24.5 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 51% → 82% |
| 215 The Donway W | Condos | 4 | 6 | 5.0 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 21% → 83% |
| 205 The Donway W | Condos | 6 | 12 | 13.5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 38% → 75% |
| Building 011 | Community Housing | 6 | 10 | 11.5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 38% → 96% |
| Building 012 | Condos | 6 | 17 | 17.0 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 47% → 94% |
| Building 013 | Apartments | 6 | 15 | 15.5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 43% → 86% |
| 16 Quarry Lane N | Community Housing | 5 | 21 | 18.5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 44% → 77% |
| Building 014 | Community Housing | 5 | 11 | 14.0 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 39% → 78% |
| Building 015 | Community Housing | 5 | 16 | 20.0 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 48% → 83% |
| Building 016 | Apartments | 5 | 8 | 9.0 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 30% → 75% |
| 115 The Esplanade | Co-Ops | 5 | 20 | 21.5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 51% → 90% |
| Building 017 | Apartments | 6 | 18 | 17.0 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 47% → 94% |
Caveat: with no client time-windows or durations, this models structural
consolidation (how few workers could cover the demand), not minute-by-minute schedule
feasibility. It upgrades to full VRPTW once real availability/time-window data arrives - the
same CP-SAT engine, with travel and time-window constraints added.